Techno-Economic Analysis of A Small Scale Power-To-Green Urea Plant

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Risk and value-added balancing model for
Techno-economic analysis of a small-scale power- a sustainable industry’s supply chain
M Asrol
to-green urea plant - Research on Market Mechanism and
Scheme Design of Yunnan Demand
Response
To cite this article: Calvin Fernando and Widodo W Purwanto 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Gaoquan Ma, Fan Zhang, Wenjiao Ding et
Sci. 716 012010 al.
- Soybean production response: A study of

Jambi’s acreage response under policy
program
Edison and Dharia Renate
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 112.215.65.196 on 26/10/2021 at 08:15

The 1st Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development Symposium IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 716 (2021) 012010 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/716/1/012010
Techno-economic analysis of a small-scale power-to-green

urea plant
Calvin Fernando1, Widodo W Purwanto1*

1
Sustainable Energy Systems and Policy Research Cluster, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia
* widodo@che.ui.ac.id
Abstract. Power-to-green urea is the concept of urea production using hydrogen from
photovoltaic (PV)-electrolysis; a promising option for remote area that do not have natural gas
reserves. In this study techno-economic analysis of a small-scaled power-to-green urea plant is
conducted with the purpose of obtaining energy efficiency of the system, specific energy
consumption, and urea price. Process simulation is carried out by using Aspen Plus and green
urea price is calculated using cash flow with 4 schemes. Scheme 1 uses investment cost of
technology in 2019, scheme 2 is modification of scheme 1 with additional revenue through
clean development mechanisms (CDM), scheme 3 uses investment cost of technology in 2030
and 2050, and scheme 4 is a combination of scheme 2 and 3. The obtained result shows the
system efficiency of 7.9% and specific energy consumption of 109 GJ/MT urea. The price of
green urea with Scheme 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order are 2342, 2320, 2026 and 1704, as well as 2004
and 1682 USD/MT urea, respectively. Power-to-green urea could not compete economically
with conventional large-scale urea; however, due to its stable price and easily acquired raw
material it is still highly relevant for remote areas in the future.
1. Introduction
Currently, urea is the world’s most consumed fertilizer, meanwhile, in Indonesia, it comprises 50% of
the total fertilizer stock in 2019 [1][2]. In order to produce urea, ammonia is required and its
production process contributes to 1.8% of both global energy output and carbon dioxide emission
annually, making it the largest carbon dioxide emitter of the chemical industry [3]. The underlying
reason for this is that hydrogen, the building block for ammonia, is synthesized through steam
methane reforming that emits a high carbon dioxide level.
In recent years, the movement towards green chemical industry is apparent, the identification of
commodity chemicals with high carbon emission paves the way towards focusing upcoming
researches towards greening the ammonia-based fertilizer industry [4]. An all electrical ammonia plant
has been reported together with a plausible all-solar ammonia production; however, the latter is still
hypothetical and not fit for commercial ammonia production [5]. The techno-economic study is fairly
widespread regarding green ammonia; wind-powered electrolysis coupled with Haber-Bosch process
was found to yield levelized cost of ammonia (LCOA) three times higher its conventional counterpart
[6], another study conducted by the South Australian Government vary the utilization of electrolysis-
sourced hydrogen and evaluate the economics through net present worth (NPV) yielding negative
NPV for large-scale ammonia production even when the plant is built in 2027 [7]. Apart from
economic aspect, energy consumption and system efficiency from renewable power to ammonia is
also present; generally, power from wind results in higher system efficiency in comparison to solar;
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
however, both have lower system efficiency and higher energy consumption per metric ton ammonia
[4][8].
Based on previous studies, the system boundary starts from either solar or wind power source to the
ammonia synthesis process. There have been no studies that have reviewed up to the urea production
process. Therefore, this study aims to assess the techno-economic aspects of a small-scale power-to-
green urea plant based on PV electricity situated in Nusa Tenggara Barat that projects green urea price
in 2019, 2030, and 2050 while also taking into account clean development mechanism in its revenue
stream.
1.1. System description

The concept of power-to-green urea is an extension of the power-to-x concept in which excess or
available renewable electricity is transformed into a specific end product; it could range from gaseous
hydrogen, liquid fuels like methanol, or reverted back into power if need be [9]. The proposed power-
to-green urea plant is then made up of four sub-systems as follows; PV-electrolysis unit, carbon
capture amine and air separation unit, Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis unit, and a urea synthesis unit.
An existing coal-combustion power plant is to supply flue gas to the hypothetical plant situated in a
remote area of choice, Nusa Tenggara Barat (-8.741901, 116.776560).
1.1.1. PV-electrolysis. Solar energy together with water are available at all location especially in an
archipelagic and tropical country like Indonesia. The average Indonesian daily horizontal irradiation
(DHI) is 4.4-4.8 kWh/m2 and on certain locations even as high as 6 kWh/m2 [10]. Situated in Nusa
Tenggara Barat, the hypothetical plant will experience a DHI of 6 kWh/m 2. The combination of PV
array and an electrolyzer is then referred as PV-electrolysis, this system is also coupled with battery to
accommodate intermittency, allowing continuous hydrogen production
Amongst silicone-based panels, monocrystalline silicone (m-si) has been found to outperform other
of the same class in tropical Indonesian climate [11]. Looking forward PV investment costs will
decrease significantly as it has already had in recent years [12]. The same trend follows with Li-ion
battery; the choice of Li-ion is due to significant cost reduction in the future and also its current
available size [13].
Commercial electrolysis of water employs either alkaline electrolyzer (AEL) or proton exchange
membrane (PEM); the former being more established technologically than the latter [14]. In an
intermittent system where electricity is highly variable, PEM is better over AEL system due to its
resilience to dynamic operation; however, this is unnecessary as the plant will run continuously. Thus
AEL is chosen as the electrolyzer of choice for the study.
1.1.2. Carbon capture and air separation. In this study, water electrolysis is utilized to produce
carbon-free hydrogen, it is then necessary to source the gas through different means namely carbon
capture using monoethanolamine (MEA). The choice of post-combustion capture using MEA is opted
to its maturity, cost, and energy consumption over other promised contender being membrane
separation [15].
The utilization of MEA in carbon dioxide capture process is considered as chemical absorption.
The global reaction along the capture process and constants is available in Aspen Plus process
simulator databank [16][17]. Due to the size of the plant, a pressure swing adsorption unit is combined
with carbon capture system separating the nitrogen from clean gas produced from the top absorber
column [18].
1.1.3. Ammonia and urea synthesis. Ammonia is a reactant for urea synthesis and is produced through
a century old Haber-Bosch process. The process involves passing gaseous nitrogen and hydrogen of
high purity through an adiabatic fixed-bed reactor with an iron catalyst; the reaction is highly
exothermic needing multiple-bed with quenching in between by fresh feed [19].
2
Urea is produced through a two-step reaction involving ammonia and carbon dioxide forming
ammonium carbamate then its dissociation into urea and water. State-of-the-art urea synthesis licensed
by Stamicarbon could yield around 99% of the input carbon dioxide after recycling. A simulation
model for urea synthesis is available in Aspen Plus Case Example Directory and is based on
Stamicarbon licensed process [20]. The ammonium carbamate dissociation step is endothermic;
however, no heat is required as ammonium carbamate formation is exothermic, thus sustaining the
reaction on its own.
2. Method
The analysis consists of two major steps; process simulation of power-to-green urea plant followed by
cost estimation and cash flow analysis. Aspen Plus V11 process simulator is employed to perform
process simulation and cash flow analysis is conducted by Microsoft Excel.
2.1. Process simulation

As design basis, the capacity of small-scale urea plant is 13000 MT/year. Aspen Plus process
simulator is used to simulate carbon capture using amine, ammonia synthesis, and urea synthesis.
Process flow diagram for PV-electrolysis, carbon capture using amine, ammonia synthesis, and urea
synthesis are presented in Figure 1-4. Feed for the aforementioned processes in figure 1-4 in order are
water, flue gas, nitrogen and hydrogen, and ammonia and carbon dioxide; whilst its product are
hydrogen and oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, ammonia, and urea, respectively.
Tool for modelling AEL in Aspen Plus is not available, thus, the CALCULATOR block feature
together with its built-in Fortran script writer is used to model the reaction involved inside an
electrolyzer. Equations that model the phenomenon inside an AEL was adopted from [21], the result
of the model shows water to hydrogen conversion and its corresponding required electricity input.
Physical characteristics of AEL module such as its active area and current density is based on
operating data from by [22]. The equation to calculate energy input from PV-battery system to the
AEL is presented in equation 1, with Vstack being voltage in volts of a stack (V), N being number of
stacks, I being current density in ampere (A), and Welec being power input in Watts (W). Vstack is a
function of pressure and temperature of the system and for this study a constant 80 o C and 7 bar is
chosen as operating condition.
𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 = 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 × 𝐼 × 𝑁 (1)
The PV array is designed in order to capture electricity required for a continuous operation of the
plant with a supporting Li-ion battery. Capacity factor (CF) of PV array in Nusa Tenggara Barat could
reach 0.25, with equation 2 rated power of the PV array is calculated [8]. Battery size (Bsize) is the
product of electricity consumption (Welec) and operating hour of electrolyzer without available
irradiation (hnosun), giving the battery size through equation 3 [23].
𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 (2)
𝑊𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 =
𝐶𝐹
𝐵𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 × ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑛 (3)
Carbon dioxide capture from flue gas originating from Batu Hijau Coal Power Plant is simulated
with ELEC-NRTL fluid package to make up for ionic interaction and non-idealities in liquid phase
[24]. RadFrac block is used to model both the absorber and desorber with operating condition adapted
from the work of Zhang & Chen [16] which has been optimized to recover 99% of carbon dioxide
from the flue gas. It is assumed that the composition of Batu Hijau flue gas is similar to flue gas
composition delivered by Arachchige & Melaaen [24] with an additional assumption of neglecting
hydrogen sulfide composition. A black-box PSA is retrofitted into the flowsheet taking in clean gas
and purifying nitrogen for ammonia synthesis purpose [19].
3
Ammonia synthesis uses the NRTL fluid package due to the non-idealities involved in the mixture.
The three-bed fixed reactor is modelled with the R-PLUG block in Aspen Plus process simulator and
is an adaptation from an actual plant in China; operating condition of reactor inlet is at 305oC and 140
bar with a single pass mole conversion of 25% which agrees with condition available in [19]. Rate
equation for industrial iron catalyst is available and is presented in equation 4 [19].
2𝑓 𝑃𝐻1.5 𝑃𝑁𝐻 (4)

𝑟𝑁𝐻3 = (𝑘1 𝑃𝑁2 2 − 𝑘−1 1.53 )
𝜌𝑐𝑎𝑡 𝑃𝑁𝐻3 𝑃𝐻2
The final simulation for urea is obtained from Aspen Plus Sample Case Directory [20] a sample
simulation for a large-scale Stamicarbon urea synthesis given by Aspen Plus is used as a starting point
for the simulation. A modification towards operating condition and flowsheet is carried out to match
industrial operating condition [25]. The process starts at the high-pressure carbamate condenser
(HPCC), reactants are converted into ammonium carbamate; the conversion is set using the design
specification feature on Aspen Plus process simulator as to maintain the outlet temperature of urea
synthesis reactor at 185o C. The resulting urea solution is sent into the stripper to be liberated using
fresh carbon dioxide incoming from the carbon capture unit.
Figure 1. Alkaline electrolyzer process flow sheet.
Figure 2. Carbon capture with pressure swing adsorption process flow sheet.
4
Figure 3. Ammonia synthesis process flow sheet.
Figure 4. Urea synthesis process flow sheet.
2.2. Technical Analysis

Evaluation of plant efficiency (LHV) will only include PV-electrolysis to ammonia synthesis; a
reduction in system boundary is made due to urea being a non-fuel end product. However, energy
consumption will include the whole system boundary as previously addressed.
2.2.1. System efficiency. The power-to-ammonia efficiency (ηsystem) is defined as shown in equation 5
and its variables in equation 6-8 [21][23][26].
𝜂𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = (𝜂𝑃𝑉 × 𝜂𝐴𝐸𝐿 × 𝜂𝑁𝐻3 ) × 100% (5)

𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 (6)
𝜂𝑃𝑉 =
𝐴 × 𝐺𝐻𝐼
𝑀𝐻2 × 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝐻2 (7)
𝜂𝐴𝐸𝐿 =
𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐
𝑀𝑁𝐻3 × 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑁𝐻3 (8)
𝜂𝑁𝐻3 =
(𝑀𝐻2 × 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝐻2 ) + (𝑀𝑁2 × 𝐸𝐷𝑁2 ) + 𝐸𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
Where η is efficiency (%), M is the mass flow rate (kg/h), LHV is the lower heating value
(kWh/kg), ED is energy demand (kWh/kg), E is energy used in one-hour interval (kWh), A is solar
array area (m2), and GHI is global horizontal irradiation (kWh/m2) respectively.
2.2.2. Specific energy consumption. The energy consumption of urea production (EDurea) is defined as
shown in equation 9 [26].
5
𝐸𝑠𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 + 𝐸𝑢−𝑁𝐻3 + 𝐸𝑢−𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎 (9)

𝐸𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎 =
𝑀𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎
Where Esun is the energy input into PV in an hour (kWh), Eu-NH3 is the energy input for ammonia
synthesis in an hour (kWh), and Eu-urea is the energy input for urea synthesis in an hour (kWh). The
utility for ammonia synthesis has include power to generate nitrogen, refrigeration, load, compression,
and heating duties.
2.3. Economic assessment

The determination of urea price (USD/MT urea) is evaluated through cash flow analysis.
Determination of CAPEX of carbon capture, ammonia synthesis, and urea synthesis is estimated based
on [27] using modular and Guthrie method; this method has an uncertainty of ±20%. As for pressure
swing adsorption, the usage of sixth-tenth rule [27] on CAPEX data provided by [8]; the method is
employed because it is a black-box model. PV base CAPEX is given by [28] and is projected using
learning rate of 37%, electrolyzer base CAPEX is given by [29] and projected with learning rate of
55.8%, and battery CAPEX is acquired through projection by [13].
Urea price is determined using 4 schemes; Scheme 1 determines urea price without CDM and 2
with CDM, Scheme 3 determines the price of urea without CDM and projected investment cost for
battery, PV, and electrolyzer in 2030 (3a) and 2050 (3b), and Scheme 4 which is a combination of
Scheme 2 and 3 in 2030 (4a) and in 2050 (4b). The plant will enjoy additional revenue stream from
oxygen, nitrogen, and CDM with a flat price of 50, 177, and 30 USD/MT, respectively throughout its
25 years lifetime. CAPEX investment will be fulfilled through bank-loan (70%) and hypothetical
investor equity (30%). Yearly loan interest will be in accordance to Bank Indonesia rate in 2019 at
6%, income tax will be set at 25%, cost of equity is calculated and yield result of 9.25%, and the
internal rate of return of the plant is set above the calculated weighted average cost of capital (WACC)
at 10%. The resulting price will be compared to a large-scaled commercial urea price according to [30]
and a hypothetical small-scaled natural gas urea scaled through sixth-tenth rule with data acquired
from [31]. CAPEX and OPEX data for each unit involved in the plant is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. CAPEX and OPEX data of individual process units.

Technology
Year PV Battery AEL Carbon Ammonia Urea
(USD/kW) (USD/kWh) (USD/kW) capture synthesis Synthesis
2019 1250 376 840
2030 797 306 348 Guthrie CAPEX estimation
2050 521 268 158
OPEX 1% 2% CAPEX 2% 7% 1.5% 1.5%

(USD/y) CAPEX CAPEX CAPEX CAPEX CAPEX
Ref. [28][32] [13][33] [29] [34] [35] [35]
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Energy system analysis

The flow of energy is presented in Sankey Diagram (Figure 6). The flow of energy starts from PV to
the final urea production; each process involved have their given efficiency as given by equation 5
through 8. The energy consumption for urea production can also be extracted from the Sankey
Diagram given.
6
Efficiency of PV, AEL, and ammonia synthesis unit are 19.4, 63.35, and 64%, respectively with its
overall efficiency of 7.9%. Comparing with a conventional ammonia production with efficiency of 42-
48%, the system does fall behind. It is to be noted that conventional ammonia is only comprised of
two process units in order to procure ammonia; whilst power-to-ammonia has an additional power
source namely photovoltaic; thus, in actuality the process is energy-wise competitive when only
hydrogen production is compared. The efficiency of hydrogen production through steam methane
reforming and electrolysis is comparable with the former having an efficiency of 65-75% and the latter
of 45-67% with lower heating value as its basis. Although power-to-ammonia lacks in round-trip
efficiency; the green and unlimited aspect sunlight as its energy source is its edge over conventional
ammonia production process.
The energy consumption of urea production is 109 GJ/MT urea as calculated using equation 17.
Conventional urea from natural gas has an energy consumption of about 21.6 GJ/MT urea; this
translates to 500% increase in energy consumption to produce an equal amount of urea. Similar to its
conventional counterpart, the hydrogen production process with the proposed power-to-green urea
consumes 91% of total energy and leaving 9% for utilities and also carbon dioxide capture; thus,
focusing future studies on lowering energy consumption for the process should aim its focus on the
hydrogen production section.
3.2. Economic analysis

CAPEX is evaluated through benchmarking with a previous feasibility study due to no power-to-green
urea plant at the present. A CAPEX breakdown is presented in Table 2. Throughout the cost
breakdown, battery and PV dominates the share of CAPEX although reduction of cost is present in
year beyond 2019. Both of the component still dominates around 50% of the overall CAPEX up to
2050, the reduction of these components is then a determining in realizing proposed design of a small-
scaled green urea production plant. Another dominant CAPEX contributor is the ammonia synthesis
unit which never fall short from 21% of CAPEX share as its cost is not projected. As another major
contributor towards total CAPEX, the ammonia synthesis unit should be taken notice in future studies;
perhaps taking into account its cost reduction in 2030 and 2050.
Cash flow analysis of Scheme 1-4 is presented in Figure 8. A significant reduction of green urea
price from the base year is not present earlier in 2030; however, in 2050 a 27% reduction in price
occurs. The addition of revenue through CDM initiative has also not able to reduce green urea price,
only enabling a reduction of at most 1.2%. Throughout the analysis, there is no available scheme and
year in which a small-scaled power-to-green urea can compete with a large-scaled commercial urea,
this also applies to a hypothetical small-scaled natural gas-based urea. Although green urea price does
not decrease significantly throughout the study, its hypothetical counterpart rise in price is a subject of
interest. In 2019, a hypothetical small-scaled plant with an equal output as the design basis experience
a 200% increase in price by 2050. Through this observation, conventional urea is volatile due to
increase in incoming rise of gas price, but green urea does not follow the same trend due to its
feedstock being water and electricity. Difference in price of conventional urea produced from a large
and small-scaled also differs greatly; it seems that due to economies of scale.
7
Figure 5. Power-to-green urea Sankey diagram.
Table 2. CAPEX share and projection of hypothetical power-to-green urea plant.

Year
2019 2030 2050
Total Investment (M USD) 195 171 146
Share (%)
Ammonia unit 21 24 28
Urea unit 8 9 10
PV 20 18 14
Battery 34 32 33
Carbon capture unit 4 2 2
Offsite facilities 4 5 6
Figure 6. Urea price comparison with 4 proposed schemes.
4. Conclusion
Through the energy and mass balance of the plant, usage of equation 5-9 for technical assessment and
the execution of cash flow analysis the results are obtained as follows, efficiency and specific energy
consumption are 7.9% and 109 GJ/MT urea with lower heating value as basis; and green urea price
from Scheme 1-4 are 2342, 2320, 2026 and 1704, and 2004 and 1682 USD/MT, respectively. From an
energy perspective, the power-to-green urea is less efficient than its conventional counterpart and
leads to a 500% increase in urea production energy consumption. From an economic perspective,
power-to-green urea could not compete even with the upcoming cost reduction of PV-electrolysis and
battery in 2030 and 2050. The CDM initiative is not enough to reduce green urea prices, resulting only
a 1.2% price reduction. It is then to be noted that small-scaled power-to-green urea is not economically
feasible, but for remote areas without gas reserves, the concept is still relevant; considering easily
procured raw material being water, resistant to spikes in natural gas prices, while also being
environmentally green.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful towards the Directorate for Research and Public Serviced (DPRM) Universitas
Indonesia for the financial support of the Hibah Publikasi Terindeks Internasional (PUTI) Prosiding
Universitas Indonesia, Contract Number: NKB-1105/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2020.
8
References
[1] YARA 2018 Yara fertilizer industry handbook p 23
[2] Rafael E C 2019 Pupuk Indonesia siapkan stok pupuk 1,26 juta ton untuk antisipasi musim
tanam Jakarta
[3] The Royal Society 2020 Ammonia: zero-carbon fertiliser, fuel and energy store (London) p 6
[4] Schiffer Z J and Manthiram K 2017 Joule 1 10
[5] Wang L, Huang K, Wang H and Qian C 2018 Joule 2 1055
[6] Morgan E R 2013 Techno-economic feasibility study of ammonia plants powered by offshore
wind (Amherst: Open Access Dissertations/University of Massachusetts Amherst) pp 286-312
[7] Advisian, Acil Allen and Siemens 2017 South Australian green hydrogen study (Melbourne:
Ad visian) pp 3-4
[8] Alcántara R B, Dericks G, Fiaschetti M, Grünewald P, Lopez J M, Tsang E, Yang A, Ye L and
Z Hao S 2015 Analysis of islanded ammonia-based energy storage systems (Oxford: University
of Oxford) pp 85-88
[9] Siemens 2019 Decarbonizing energy with green hydrogen: technology available and prove in
production today pp 2-4
[10] The World Bank 2019 Solar resource maps of Indonesia (Global Solar Atlas)
[11] Rosyid O A 2016 AIP Conf. Proc. 1712 020004-1
[12] Fraunhofer ISE 2015 Current and future cost of photovoltaic. Long-term scenarios for market
de lopment, system prices and LCOE of utility-scale PV systems (Freidburg: Frauhofer ISE) p
82
[13] Cole W and Frazier A W 2019 Cost projections for utility-scale battery storage (Golden, CO:
National Energy Laboratory) pp 5-7
[14] Lehner M, Tichler R, Steinmüller H, Koppe M 2014 Power-to-Gas: Technology and Business
Models ed J Cohen (Linz: SpringerBriefs in Energy) chapter 1-3 pp 1-39
[15] Wang Y, Zhao L, Otto A, Robinius M and Stolten D 2016 Energy Procedia 114 650
[16] Zhang Y and Chen C C 2013 Energy Procedia 37 1584
[17] Aspen Plus 2019 Aspen Plus reaction databank (Bedford, MA: Aspen Technology Inc)
[18] Kolmetz K and Dwijayanti A 2013 Air separation units selection, sizing and troubleshooting
handbook of process equipment design ed K Kolmetz (Johor Bahru: KLM Technology Group)
pp 5-12
[19] Zhang H, Wang L, Van herle J, Maréchal F and Desideri U 2019 Appl. Energy 259 114135
[20] Aspen Plus 2019 Aspen Plus urea synthesis loop model (Bedford, MA: Aspen Technology Inc)
[21] Sánchez M, Amores E, Abad D, Rodríguez L and Clemente-Jul C 2020 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
45 3916
[22] Ruth M, Mayyas A and Mann M 2017 Fuel cell seminar and energy exposition (California)
(Washington: National Renewable Energy Laboratory) pp 5-11
[23] Ghafoor A and Munir A 2014 Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 42 496
[24] Arachchige U S P R and Melaaen M C 2012 Energy Procedia 23 391
[25] Mennen J H 2012 Urea stripping process for the production of urea Patents US20120302789A1
[26] Baboo P 2015 Ammonia & urea plant energy consumption calculation (UreaKnowHow.com)
pp 1-3
[27] Seider W D, Seader J D and Lewin D R 2003 Product and process design principles synthesis,
analysis, and evaluation ed A W Anderson (John Wiley and Sons, Inc) 2nd edition pp 472-558
[28] International Renewable Energy Agency 2019 Future of solar photovoltaic: deployment,
investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects (Abu Dhabi: IRENA) p 27
[29] International Renewable Energy Agency 2019 Hydrogen: a renewable energy perspective (Abu
Dhabi: IRENA) p 27
[30] Alfian M and Purwanto W W 2019 Energy Sci. Eng. 7 292
[31] Åtland V and Jakobsen Daniel 2016 Concept for large scale hydrogen production (Trondheim:
NTNU) p 145
9
[32] Vartiainen E, Masson G and Breyer C 2015 PV LCOE in Europe 2014-30 (European PV
Technology Platform) p 13
[33] LAZARD 2018 Lazard levelized cost of storage analysis-version 4.0 (LAZARD) p 6
[34] Husebye J, Brunsvold A L, Roussanaly S, Zhang X 2012 Energy Procedia 23 381
[35] IEAGHG, “Techno-Economic Evaluation of Hyco Plant Integrated to Ammonia/Urea or
Methan Ol Production with CCS”, 2017/03, February, 2017
10

Techno-Economic Analysis of A Small Scale Power-To-Green Urea Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Techno-Economic Analysis of A Small Scale Power-To-Green Urea Plant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Techno-Economic Analysis of A Small Scale Power-To-Green Urea Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Soybean production response: A study of

This content was downloaded from IP address 112.215.65.196 on 26/10/2021 at 08:15

Techno-economic analysis of a small-scale power-to-green

Calvin Fernando1, Widodo W Purwanto1*

1.1. System description

2.1. Process simulation

𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 = 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 × 𝐼 × 𝑁 (1)

2𝑓 𝑃𝐻1.5 𝑃𝑁𝐻 (4)

Figure 1. Alkaline electrolyzer process flow sheet.

Figure 3. Ammonia synthesis process flow sheet.

Figure 4. Urea synthesis process flow sheet.

2.2. Technical Analysis

𝜂𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = (𝜂𝑃𝑉 × 𝜂𝐴𝐸𝐿 × 𝜂𝑁𝐻3 ) × 100% (5)

𝐸𝑠𝑢𝑛𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 + 𝐸𝑢−𝑁𝐻3 + 𝐸𝑢−𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑎 (9)

2.3. Economic assessment

Table 1. CAPEX and OPEX data of individual process units.

OPEX 1% 2% CAPEX 2% 7% 1.5% 1.5%

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Energy system analysis

3.2. Economic analysis

Figure 5. Power-to-green urea Sankey diagram.

Table 2. CAPEX share and projection of hypothetical power-to-green urea plant.

Figure 6. Urea price comparison with 4 proposed schemes.

You might also like